Over the course of a few days in late January, someone at the Department of National Defence (DND) made a series of edits to the Wikipedia page of Rehtaeh Parsons, the Nova Scotia teenager who hanged herself in 2013 after months of bullying following an alleged gang rape.

The anonymous editor changed a reference to the “four boys accused of sexually assaulting Rehtaeh Parsons” to the “four boys involved.” He deleted or altered a couple of references to “rape” and sexual assault. Most egregiously, he altered a direct quote from Ms. Parsons’ father, Glen Canning, which originally read: “The two boys involved in taking and posing for the photograph stated Rehtaeh was throwing up when they had sex with her. That is not called consensual sex. That is called rape.”

The quote was changed to: “The two boys involved in taking and posing for the photograph stated Rehtaeh was throwing up after they had sex with her. That is called consensual sex.” Understandably upset, Mr. Canning complained to the Defence Department.

Last week, military police said they had arrested and questioned a Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) member in connection with what a spokesperson called “inappropriate comments made online.” Though police didn’t give out the name of the man they had arrested, a search warrant used in the investigation confirmed it was the father of one of the boys convicted of child pornography for sharing the photograph in the Parsons case (who cannot be named under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.)

The man has since been released from custody, though the investigation is ongoing. We’d like to know why he was arrested in the first place.

To be sure, the DND has strict guidelines for accessing the Internet through its computer systems. According to the Defence Administrative Orders and Directives, CAF members and DND employees may face repercussions if their online behaviour is “contrary to the Criminal Code, any other federal statute or regulation, or a provincial statute or regulation,” or else “has or could reasonably have caused harm to others.” The DND guidelines are explicit that there should be no expectation of privacy when using military computers.

Using the veil of Internet anonymity to intervene in such an inflammatory way on such a raw and emotional issue is clearly behaviour unworthy of a member of the forces

Violations typically result in anything from a loss of computer privileges to a release from the CAF. But arrest? Search warrants? Military police? As contentious as the offending statements are, there is no suggestion the man has committed any offence under the civilian Criminal Code. The worst he might conceivably be charged with is “disgraceful conduct” under an ambiguously worded section of the military Code of Service.

We don’t mean to minimize this. Using the veil of Internet anonymity to intervene in such an inflammatory way on such a raw and emotional issue — and on the DND’s own computer system — is clearly behaviour unworthy of a member of the forces.

But we do not — or should not — arrest people in this country for making obnoxious comments. Detaining the man in question seems to be more about feeding a public desire for retribution than any practical application of justice. That’s not enough reason to haul out the handcuffs.